While Stern obviously wants to head off speculation that game-fixing might be a more widespread problem in his sport, there's another question he clearly does not want to address. Why didn't he take the one obvious step that could have prevented this disaster? I'm speaking, of course, as I have so often, about using instant replay to correct mistakes in NBA games. When I've derided the "human factor" in the past, it was based on all the honest mistakes sports officials make, none more than NBA refs. I wasn't even addressing all those other human factors — alimony, college tuition, a demanding mistress — that might make a ref all too human. Now that it appears the common human failing of a gambling problem has gotten the better of an NBA referee, isn't it time the league takes this simple step to mitigate against intentionally missed calls?

Implementing instant replay would be the single easiest way to combat the lure of fixing games for financial gain. If a ref knows that his every call might be challenged by a coach, is he really going to knowingly make a mistake with the understanding that it will be dissected from 10 different angles? Would Donaghy, dirty or not, have dared blow his whistle from halfcourt after fellow ref Greg Willard, standing under the basket, had already determined Manu Ginobli had not been fouled on a drive in Game 3 of the Western Conference semifinals? (The ensuing replay was not kind to Donaghy and is no doubt now an exhibit in the government's case against him.)

I'm with Bbills on this. Football is a game of yardage and movement with scores only happening sporadically compared to the nba game where movement is a given and scores come regularly. of the 4 examples i think all are lame. what i would instant replay is shooting fouls and even then its way too subjective to call. is instant replay going to stop all the tickey tack fouls on wade? No way. Its subjective as to HOW MUCH contact is allowed and where contact is allowed.

Each team should get 1 challenge. If they are right, then they get to use it again. That should keep the whining down during the game as well. Why complain about a call when you can challenge it? And after you lose a challenge, your complaining credibility is destroyed.

The variant I would suggest would be that they don't use the conclusive proof to overturn like they do in the NFL. They should just have a guy who instantly watches it and gives his verdict. The whole challenge should take at most 30 seconds. The replay official should be sitting at a TV with full rewind controls.

And I would suggest that any call worthy of a whistle is challenge-able. 3 in the key, push in the back, charge/block, foul on a shot, travel, etc. Out of bounds calls would also be in play.

You are charged with a timeout in the NFL if you challenge and lose, get the TO back if you win. Maybe they could do something similiar.

Still is not going to solve the problem.

They need to get rid of all the old beefs and grudges between refs/players and coaches. Get rid of the Superstar calls, home cooking, 0 tolerance rule. Get rid of all the refs who have short fuses.

If they approach reffing from a completly unbiased standpoint with level headed and fair officials then all the calls will balance out in the end and we will get to see some pretty good ball. Also get some stars that can compete better in the International games.

I say they implement it through team fouls, each team can use 1 challenge per quarter. If its wrong it counts against team fouls and 30 second TO is deducted. If its right (call is overturned) then the team gets the chance to do it again in that quarter... This way the team is not just penalized with TO (which cancels because it will take that time to review the call anyway) but also with a team foul which could be costly down the stretch. The challenges would be used more carefully, but also, they wont be saved for late in the game. By spreading their use throughout the game, ref behavior can be scrutinized evenly through the game. What do y'all think?

I am against using instant replay as a basis for changing refs calls. I don't like it in the NFL and I would like it even less in basketball.

First off you have the difficulty of deciding what would fall under the review procedure for possible change.

Some of the things that could fall under the review process are

1. Cheating on the tipoff 2. All possible out of bounds plays. 3. Possible goal tending 4. Zone defenses 5. Charge or blocking call 6. Outside the arc on a three point shot 7. All plays on defense where there is contact. (should a foul be called or not) 8. Entering the lane too fast on a free throw 9. Possible travel calls 10. Carrying the ball over situations. 11. Hanging on the rim (technical or not) 12. Illegal and moving screens 13. Flagrant fouls - Is the foul a flagrant or not 14. Zone offenses 15. 3 seconds in the lane 16. Animated reaction to a an officials call by a player or coach. (These actions can be subject to technical fouls under the current rules) 17. Too many players on the court 18. All other situations that I left out that become subject to review.

Once the powers to be decide on the items that will be subject to review, which will probably take two or three years. The Player's association will obviously have to agree to the list. So what is on the list become like an other item covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the league i.e., owners and the Players' Association.

Then you must decide how many appeals a team gets and what happens if they go over the limit, just like in the NFL. Will there be a different penalty or maybe none at all, even if the team that raised the challange is over the limit, provided that the play is not overruled. Again this become a negotiated point for the collective bargaining agreement.

This to me is the worst part of the player review. Why. Because it leads to coaches throwing the flag, or however a challenge will be indicated, when they think a call is made that is important to be reversed. Not a call that they disagree with, which would be the case if there was no limit on how many challenges a team could make. I it did work like that, where there was no limit without penalty, then the games would never be competed.

So as it is now in the NFL, a lot of bad calls go unchallenged and a coach challenges only those calls that he thinks will make the difference if the call is reversed.

So you have a lot of bad calls that affect the outcome of game and few challenges on calls that may or not affect the outcome of game.

I would rather live with the coaches complaining about a call or lack of a call in certain situations rather than have coaches make decisions to review only those that the coach deems important, whether they correct in that judgment or not.

Not all plays will have the proper camera angle to determine what the call should be. So what if the coach challenges a play where the proper camera angle is not available. Then you could be where you were before, with a bad call and on top the that the challenging team may get penalized if that is how it will work with an excessive number of challenges above the limit.

Another possible form of implementation would be a Technical Advisor, College Football-style. This system relies on a TA to decide whether calls should be reviewed, not the coaches. This TA should only challenge calls that have the correct camera angle present to make a good call. Also i think they should widdle down the list of challenge-able calls into things that are easier (nothing will be a cake walk) to differentiate...

Not all plays will have the proper camera angle to determine what the call should be. So what if the coach challenges a play where the proper camera angle is not available. Then you could be where you were before, with a bad call and on top the that the challenging team may get penalized if that is how it will work with an excessive number of challenges above the limit.

So even the replay method can lead to bad calls not being overturned.

Click to expand...

Camera angles can be deceptive for sure. I know one fellow that used to post on the detnews forum who claimed that some of the Piston players looked much better at different camera angles.

Are you talking about a challenge? If so yes, but a team should only have 1 challenge for the whole game. I have seen some weird calls. A challenge would have to make the refs justify their decision. Their are crucial blocking/charging calls in the NBA down the stretch. A challenge would allow that call to be correct because during the game the moment passes by quick and mistakes are made.